434 réponses à ce sujet

[Relix28]

EDIT: nvm.

Modifié par Relix28, 20 avril 2011 - 04:08 .

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^There is a little mention about a possible class / class variant that can be melee focused. Whether it will be entirely new or just a reworking of an existing class, or just a viable type of playstyle is unknown.

[Sparrow44]

Yeah all classes are getting a unique melee attack, "heavy melee" seems more like "more emphasis on melee attacks."

Lost in translation hopefully.

[Relix28]

EDIT: Ninja'd by Sparroww 

Yeah, I thought that was more like those unique melee attacks for every class, that were already mentiond in the GI. That article translation is not entirely accurate btw.

Modifié par Relix28, 20 avril 2011 - 04:12 .

[chester013]

Relix28 wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Relix28 wrote...

SMG's always semed like support weapons or an alternative quick-draw weapons that you carry on your hip. I think that was thier purpose in ME2 and they mostly felt like that. The only possible exception might be the Locust, but to be honest, it felt more like a poor man's assualt rifle then anything else. Wich is not a bad thing, since it is an SMG and NOT an assault rifle.
And I don't think pistols and SMG's should be on par with assault rifles and snipers. You know, you do have Incinarate, Warp and Overload to deal with protections if you play a caster class. That compensates the lack of fire power they do not posses. Making all weapon types more or less equally powerfull would somewhat break the balance between powers and weapons.

Maybe I play casters too much, but my SMG's really eff things up and have a crap ton of ammo.  I think weapons should be on par otherwise why have choice.  And besides what makes the sodlier better isn't the assault rifle he has because after the collecotr ship I can have one as well it is the Adrenaline Rush and passives that make him just better with those guns than the caster classes.  

SMG's are not crappy or inefficient weapons. I never said that. But they do lack the versatility, punch and stability of their bigger cousins AR's. Or at least that's what I imagine devs had in mind when they were creating SMG's.
And yes, offcourse that Soldiers passive and ARush will compliment his gun centric playstyle. But that's not the point. I think you are forgeting that weapons were always an important factor when it camed to balancing in MassEffect games, just as much as powers. It's like saying, let's give Soldier powers that are on par with Engineers. Cause it makes sense, right?
And it wouldn't really limit your choices in what weapons you can use, but more like limit the number of different weapon types you can carry with you.

Perhaps an answer to this is to emulate RL machine pistols. They have a specific purpose which is close quarter combat, they lack the range of a rifle but are typically a larger calibre weapon. In game, I'd like to see SMG's more like the H&K UMP not the Steyr TMP. More of a carbine than fully automatic pistol, something with more punch and full auto fire thats effective at short range but innacurate at long distances, sort of like the tempest but with much greater stopping power (and bigger!). This would give SMG's a situational advantage instead of being the poor mans AR which is superior in every aspect in ME2.

SR plus an SMG like that would make me one happy infiltrator. And a shotgun, because you gots to have a shotty.

Modifié par chester013, 20 avril 2011 - 04:14 .

[Waltzingbear]

Yeah the meaning and context of the original statement was probably lost in the translation. It is highly unlikely that by a "class" he meant a class equivalent to Soldier or Vanguard.

edit: woops was reading page 9 

Modifié par Waltzingbear, 20 avril 2011 - 04:16 .

[Ahglock]

Relix28 wrote...

EDIT: Ninja'd by Sparroww 

Yeah, I thought that was more like those unique melee attacks for every class, that were already mentiond in the GI. That article translation is not entirely accurate btw.

I suspect/hop that is the case.  I haven't read spanish in over 20 years so I have no idea if it is a good translation or not.  I knew it was a google transaltion so I thought it might be a bit off.  Especially when lots of interviews start in English are trnaslated to spanish and then back.  Lots of opportunity for a wrong impression.  

[Relix28]

chester013 wrote...
Perhaps an answer to this is to emulate RL machine pistols. They have a specific purpose which is close quarter combat, they lack the range of a rifle but are typically a larger calibre weapon. In game, I'd like to see SMG's more like the H&K UMP not the Steyr TMP. More of a carbine than fully automatic pistol, something with more punch and full auto fire thats effective at short range but innacurate at long distances, sort of like the tempest but with much greater stopping power (and bigger!). This would give SMG's a situational advantage instead of being the poor mans AR which is superior in every aspect in ME2.

SR plus an SMG like that would make me one happy infiltrator. And a shotgun, because you gots to have a shotty.

Well, the Tempest already has that situational advantage that you are refering to. It is probably the most effective close range spray weapon in the game (not counting the Soldier exclusive Revenant). And you could say the Locust is the equivalent of H&K UMP. Low recoil, slower rof and good accuracy make it more of a carbine than an automatic spray MP.
And when I said that SMG's were poor mans AR's, I meant that in an overall perspective. AR's always were and probably always will be overall more powerfull and versatile than SMG's. And they should be.
Imo SMG's are fine as they are in ME2. If you want a strong close range SMG, you pick the Tempest, and if you want good carbine style one with better effective range, you pick the Locust. It's just a shame that we got so few to play around with, but I'm sure ME3 will improve on that.

[Aynien]

Since you are talking about guns, I was thinking, is there any chance of having acess to customize weapons inside a mission? Or we will have to wait for the whole thing get over, and go back to the Normandy to be able to change parts. I mean, having to go back to Normandy to change parts and then, go to a mission to see how the weapon is affected, kinda defeats the purpose of having a weapon customizable, right? Because, unless you are playing for like, the 3rd or 4th time, You won't have a clue to how that modification will behave against a certain type of foe, or so and on.

What you guys think about it?

Modifié par Aynien, 20 avril 2011 - 05:03 .

[Aumata]

Relix28 wrote...
Well, the Tempest already has that situational advantage that you are refering to. It is probably the most effective close range spray weapon in the game (not counting the Soldier exclusive Revenant). And you could say the Locust is the equivalent of H&K UMP. Low recoil, slower rof and good accuracy make it more of a carbine than an automatic spray MP.
And when I said that SMG's were poor mans AR's, I meant that in an overall perspective. AR's always were and probably always will be overall more powerfull and versatile than SMG's. And they should be.
Imo SMG's are fine as they are in ME2. If you want a strong close range SMG, you pick the Tempest, and if you want good carbine style one with better effective range, you pick the Locust. It's just a shame that we got so few to play around with, but I'm sure ME3 will improve on that.

I say they should drop the SMG class and put them in the pistol category.   Hell I think the SMG's are dying out now, because of the carbines.  SMG's were good for close quaters but carbines are taking over that catergory.   Might have been easier to make a carbine class. 

[Relix28]

Aumata wrote...

Relix28 wrote...
Well, the Tempest already has that situational advantage that you are refering to. It is probably the most effective close range spray weapon in the game (not counting the Soldier exclusive Revenant). And you could say the Locust is the equivalent of H&K UMP. Low recoil, slower rof and good accuracy make it more of a carbine than an automatic spray MP.
And when I said that SMG's were poor mans AR's, I meant that in an overall perspective. AR's always were and probably always will be overall more powerfull and versatile than SMG's. And they should be.
Imo SMG's are fine as they are in ME2. If you want a strong close range SMG, you pick the Tempest, and if you want good carbine style one with better effective range, you pick the Locust. It's just a shame that we got so few to play around with, but I'm sure ME3 will improve on that.

I say they should drop the SMG class and put them in the pistol category.   Hell I think the SMG's are dying out now, because of the carbines.  SMG's were good for close quaters but carbines are taking over that catergory.   Might have been easier to make a carbine class. 

That's what I think it might happen in ME3. Pistols and SMG's might fall into the same support weapon category. 
(read my first post on page 8 of this thread)

[rt604]

Stardusk78 wrote...

rt604 wrote...

Waltzingbear wrote...

I can't figure all of this ME nostalgia; that game had some serious flaws. You should start ME again and see how laughable it can be.
Getting a point blank kill with a shotgun in slow mo is much more satisfying and dramatic than how using Carnage was.

Weapons in ME2 have a very good feel to them; they aren't just some senseless paper items with numbers attached. Getting back to the weapons powers in ME would destroy that sense and make it silly.

Because soldiers got nerfed in ME 2, you can't soak as much damage to get close on insanity.  They made ammo powers soldier powers when you had the weapons mods in ME1?   And you can't get a point blank shot guns kills on insanity when there's more than 1 enemy shooting at you, unless you are maxed out Vanguard then you can charge.  Carnage was actually very useful, especially with enemies bunched together like Rachni, Droids, or Husks on Insanity.

Completely disagree with this; with 70% time dilatation, 60% storm speed bonus and the Claymore, you can very easily do this...

True you can accomplish point blank shot gun kills with this build.  But if there are several enemies in one area, like on Haelstrom when you are trying to take out the Colossus where Geth infinitely respawn until you get close to the Colossus, using shotguns at close quarters on Insanity is very difficult.  Using Carnage you can down groups of Geth that are huddled together behind cover, it's makes shotguns useful in less than ideal situations.

Plus with your build you I'm sure you can accomplish point blank shotty kills.  But with my particular build it's not possible, when I'm using hardened adrenaline rush and Shock Trooper.  Plus I don't like the fact that you have to relaod the Claymore after every shot,  I like the Revenant better because of huge ammo supply and crowd control, but to each his own.  I'm trying to build a soldier who can stand there and just soak up insane amounts of damage while dropping enemies in groups, like my Mass Effect 1 Shepard on insanity, but that's just how I want my character to play like.

[Aumata]

Relix28 wrote...

Aumata wrote...

Relix28 wrote...
Well, the Tempest already has that situational advantage that you are refering to. It is probably the most effective close range spray weapon in the game (not counting the Soldier exclusive Revenant). And you could say the Locust is the equivalent of H&K UMP. Low recoil, slower rof and good accuracy make it more of a carbine than an automatic spray MP.
And when I said that SMG's were poor mans AR's, I meant that in an overall perspective. AR's always were and probably always will be overall more powerfull and versatile than SMG's. And they should be.
Imo SMG's are fine as they are in ME2. If you want a strong close range SMG, you pick the Tempest, and if you want good carbine style one with better effective range, you pick the Locust. It's just a shame that we got so few to play around with, but I'm sure ME3 will improve on that.

I say they should drop the SMG class and put them in the pistol category.   Hell I think the SMG's are dying out now, because of the carbines.  SMG's were good for close quaters but carbines are taking over that catergory.   Might have been easier to make a carbine class. 

That's what I think it might happen in ME3. Pistols and SMG's might fall into the same support weapon category. 
(read my first post on page 8 of this thread)

Good point.  I agree, because I kept wondering where the pistol go if you have a SMG in ME2.

[Waltzingbear]

Aynien wrote...

Since you are talking about guns, I was thinking, is there any chance of having acess to customize weapons inside a mission? Or we will have to wait for the whole thing get over, and go back to the Normandy to be able to change parts. I mean, having to go back to Normandy to change parts and then, go to a mission to see how the weapon is affected, kinda defeats the purpose of having a weapon customizable, right? Because, unless you are playing for like, the 3rd or 4th time, You won't have a clue to how that modification will behave against a certain type of foe, or so and on.

What you guys think about it?

Personally I wouldn't mind it either way; sticking with the same weapons until I can get to an armory doesn't bother me. It could take a turn for the worse though if  customizing would become the standard for each single fight making it a  wearying process; switching the ammo type in ME (or likewise staves in DA2) mid-fight is not very graceful, although I liked the ammo power management in ME2.

Players should have the ability to pick up enemies' weapons from the ground so who knows?

Modifié par Waltzingbear, 20 avril 2011 - 05:49 .

[Sparrow44]

Waltzingbear wrote...

Aynien wrote...

Since you are talking about guns, I was thinking, is there any chance of having acess to customize weapons inside a mission? Or we will have to wait for the whole thing get over, and go back to the Normandy to be able to change parts. I mean, having to go back to Normandy to change parts and then, go to a mission to see how the weapon is affected, kinda defeats the purpose of having a weapon customizable, right? Because, unless you are playing for like, the 3rd or 4th time, You won't have a clue to how that modification will behave against a certain type of foe, or so and on.

What you guys think about it?

Personally I wouldn't mind it either way; sticking with the same weapons until I can get to an armory doesn't bother me. It could take a turn for the worse though if  customizing would become the standard for each single fight making it a  wearying process; switching the ammo type in ME (or likewise staves in DA2) mid-fight is not very graceful, although I liked the ammo power management in ME2.

Players should have the ability to pick up enemies' weapons from the ground so who knows?

Instead of only changing weapons and the use of customization of weapons on a research terminal or between missions I would think they'd let these features be accessed via the pause menu.

Perhaps adapting the radial menus to accomodate quick switches of mods and ammo for weapons would be handy as well. For example highlighting the weapon menu on the wheel would show your current weapons and there could be an icon for ammo which you click on and reveals the current ammunition types you have in your inventory and you can simply hover over the icon of the ammo same as you would with ammo powers from ME2 and hey presto!

Would be quicker than going through ME1's horrible cluttered equipment menu's although they should be able to make a better go of it this time around eh.

[Bozorgmehr]

Kronner wrote...

Wait a moment..what about weapons? I asked about powers. We all "spam" powers. Be it one, two or three. No difference. Complexity...as in there is a blue, yellow or purple bar..what shall I use? Makes no difference to me to be honest. It is not compex. It is a simple action game, but it is still fun.

That's BS and you know it Kronner. What you're basically saying here is waging war isn't complex at all - it's just about killing the enemy. That sounds ridiculously simplistic, yet war is a highly complicated business. Obviously having fun is the most important thing and ME is only a simple game trying to be a little bit more than the everyday shooter, but ...

ME2 is shooter (gameplay). It is not an RPG where you click on an icon and stuff happens..and all you did was the little click. Charge puts you somewhere, you do the job. Charge alone does not win you anything.

... some little tactical elements can really add to gameplay imo - and ME's rpg / power system is perfect for this. I like the simple yet reasonable effective color bars and how they affect gameplay.

I think mastering and using one move is just as worthy of a reward. I limit my Shepards on purpose.

I always prefer Warrior/Combat class to Caster types. I do not want to use 101 different powers, depending on the situation.

I want to use weapons (melee or close range) to kill enemies, so if I have one power that puts me in a perfect position to shoot them in the face with a super shotgun, I am a happy guy (like, really happy)..I do not need or want aynthing else, besides occasional biotic bomb combo, because it looks cool. Why should not I be rewarded for that style?

Mastering one move is one thing, mastering the game another - or at least that should be the case. This should not force anyone to use 101 powers or stop him/her from going face to face with a shotgun, but a little teamwork and clever positioning doesn't harm gameplay, it could add something. Let me explain:

Skill is important and plays a vital role but to those who've truly mastered the art of warfare other aspects can be equally decisive. Take the Mongol hordes that swept through Eurasia during the 13th century, for example. They were an unstoppable force, arguably the most fearsome war machine that ever roamed the earth. The mongol warriors were master horse- and bowmen, but without their brilliant commanders nobody would have ever heard about them.

When Mongol forces reached Europe, they were greeted by a magnificent display of force (relatively close to where you live today) - a huge army of heavily armored knights (including some Czechs). The Mongol warriors on their small ponies, though highly-skilled fighters, were no match for those well-protected and physically stronger European knights in close combat; and their arrows had little effect against their heavily armored foes (men and horses alike).

But like all the other nations - stupid enough to challenge the Mongol Khan - the magnificent army of 'invincible' knights (including many who had killed dozens of infidels in the Holy Land and used to simply crash into enemy ranks with a headstrong charge crushing anything in their path) was annihilated completely. A superior foe vanquished by the power of the mind instead of swords only.

The Mongols exploited every weakness and used tactics and the terrain to gain the advantage. Their small, but fast and highly maneuverable, ponies could evade and/or stay clear of the knights, and because of their light armor (and insane horsemanship) they were able to dodge most (hard-hitting yet slow moving) blows. The Mongols already knew their enemies' armor was very strong at the front but much weaker at the flanks and rear (the horses had no armor to protect their flanks and rear either).

Fake retreats were used to lure the impetuous knights (who abandoned their close formations to pursue these 'cowards') into a trap. The (already jubilant) knights were greeted by a storm of arrows; not aimed at the knights themselves, but to simply shoot down the horses under the knights who consequently crashed into the dust with little to no chance to get back up again (due to the sheer weight of their heavy armor) - they were butchered like sheep.
The Mongols lost only a few, enemy casualties ran into the tens of thousands!

This is basically what I miss in ME - being a skillful commander instead of a (simple) soldier only. You are Commander (not soldier) Shepard - it makes sense to have some kind of 'plan' before battle and Shep has to fight the Reapers - the single greatest treat in the universe. The Shepard vs Reaper story arc has a lot in common with another famous one - David vs Goliath.

The whole concept of a foot-soldier taking on the most fearsome enemy effa with only a couple guns is pathetic. There should be more to it than TA or Charge, Widow or Revenant. We already know Shep has to assemble an army including all (or most) alien species, but for me that's not enough. This same principle should be (better) implemented in basic combat as well.

Take the Vanguard for example: A skilled Vanguard player can Charge his/her way through Insanity fairly easy. Charge is a great skill and should be useful in most situations. However, Vanguards should not be able to Charge something like a YMIR like they can in ME2 - at least not without some kind of plan or backup. An ideal situation would be to only allow stuff like this with proper planning and teamwork - meaning a single Vanguard has no chance whatsoever against a YMIR, but the same Vanguard who uses his/her team and/or the environment effectively could.

This does not force anyone to use powers they don't like, but it does force players to look beyond Charge alone (and be a little creative). Clever teamwork is required to distract, disable or sabotage the YMIR - and only with the right support does a Vanguard stand a chance to take out the YMIR the 'good' way.

These small things are almost non-existent in ME2; a Vanguard can Charge anything regardless squadmates - this should change imo. Squadmates, gear, equipment, terrain etc should be a lot more important. Anyone who wants to take on the High Dragon in DA:O has to come prepared. Fire-resist gear, buffs, a healer, a tank to distract/occupy the Dragon, frost-damage etc can make a potential very hard fight look easy - not because someone is skilled using mouse and keyboard or a controller, but because of simple planning.

Why not use someone like Grunt to tank a YMIR - his durability should buy some time; hell, Stasis the damn Krogan using a (second) biotic squadmate, to make Grunt indestructible for Stasis' duration (but he won't be able to damage the mech either), i.e 'Friendly Fire' FTW While Vanguard Shep hits the (distracted) YMIR from behind (would be cool if enemies have areas which are more vulnerable than others) - just thinking aloud here.

Stuff like this would be very rewarding - at least for me - and it should be something that's only needed on the hardest difficulty (for those who like crazy stunts).

One of the few exceptions in ME2 is AI Hacking, clever use and targeting the 'right' enemy can make a huge difference. I got a couple responses to my AI Hacking Engineer vids by people accusing me to cheat, or not playing on Insanity - they didn't know what was happening (just like those ignorant European Knights). AI Hacking allowed the Engineer to move around at will and kill enemies like Vanguards and Assault Sentinels, but without their extra shields/armor > Tactics beat skill and strength! One of the most glorious moments for my Shep.

I like to see more of these things in ME3. One of the reasons I like the Adept class best is because there's more to it than skill alone. Using the best possible weapons against specific enemies or defenses, specialized squadmates to assist where needed etc - makes all the difference in the world. The wrong weapons, strategy, squadmates, use of powers etc - have major impact on performance; with the wrong tools progress will be slow regardless how good your aim is, or how well you know the game.

Vanguard Shep and Professor Fortack:

Fortack: "You want to Charge a YMIR? On Insanity? - That's impossible, or do you have some kind of plan, a secret weapon maybe?"

Shep: "NO" > Fortack: "Good luck son." (calling the ME undertaker) :innocent:

Shep: "YES" > Fortack: "That might actually work son." (taking a good seat to watch the show)

Kudos for everyone who read the whole post

[Kronner]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

That's BS and you know it Kronner. What you're basically saying here is waging war isn't complex at all - it's just about killing the enemy. That sounds ridiculously simplistic, yet war is a highly complicated business. Obviously having fun is the most important thing and ME is only a simple game trying to be a little bit more than the everyday shooter, but ...

What's BS? You make it sound like ME2 is a tactical shooter/RPG. It's not. It's fun action game, at least to me.
If you honestly believe 3 different defense protections are complex..I do not know what to say to that.

... some little tactical elements can really add to gameplay imo - and ME's rpg / power system is perfect for this. I like the simple yet reasonable effective color bars and how they affect gameplay.

They do not affect much. You press 1 (shield) or 2 (armor, barrier) that's it.

Mastering one move is one thing, mastering the game another - or at least that should be the case. This should not force anyone to use 101 powers or stop him/her from going face to face with a shotgun, but a little teamwork and clever positioning doesn't harm gameplay, it could add something. Let me explain:

...

This is basically what I miss in ME - being a skillful commander instead of a (simple) soldier only. You are Commander (not soldier) Shepard - it makes sense to have some kind of 'plan' before battle and Shep has to fight the Reapers - the single greatest treat in the universe. The Shepard vs Reaper story arc has a lot in common with another famous one - David vs Goliath.

No class in either game puts you into "skillful commander" role. You are the top dog, your squadmates are your extended ability carriers. It's the same in ME1 and ME2. "Skillful commander" could work well, but then again, AI would have to be much better..and the core of the gameplay would have to be changed..

The whole concept of a foot-soldier taking on the most fearsome enemy effa with only a couple guns is pathetic. There should be more to it than TA or Charge, Widow or Revenant. We already know Shep has to assemble an army including all (or most) alien species, but for me that's not enough. This same principle should be (better) implemented in basic combat as well.

It's not and it has never been in ME1 or 2. It is a shooter, not tactical game. Could it be? Sure, I wouldn't mind if done properly, but I do not think we will see such changes in ME3. I mean, I use pause only to switch weapons, I wouldn't miss that feature. Not many players even use it. This is why ME2 is not a tactical game, it is a shooter with some spice on top.

Take the Vanguard for example: A skilled Vanguard player can Charge his/her way through Insanity fairly easy. Charge is a great skill and should be useful in most situations. However, Vanguards should not be able to Charge something like a YMIR like they can in ME2 - at least not without some kind of plan or backup. An ideal situation would be to only allow stuff like this with proper planning and teamwork - meaning a single Vanguard has no chance whatsoever against a YMIR, but the same Vanguard who uses his/her team and/or the environment effectively could.

This does not force anyone to use powers they don't like, but it does force players to look beyond Charge alone (and be a little creative). Clever teamwork is required to distract, disable or sabotage the YMIR - and only with the right support does a Vanguard stand a chance to take out the YMIR the 'good' way.

Any Adept/Engineer player can dominate or hack enemy that does all the killing for the player. Your point?
You can get through the game fairly easily with any class..which is why (the beginning of) NG+ is so much better than NG in ME2, imho. You need to be much more careful and take it a bit slower.

Charging YMIR in ME2 on Insanity is not really viable. Sure, you can even Charge two, if you get lucky, get the spawns you need etc. It certainly isn't the safest and most effective strategy. I mean you can Stasis mech..so why couldn't you Charge it too?

These small things are almost non-existent in ME2; a Vanguard can Charge anything regardless squadmates - this should change imo. Squadmates, gear, equipment, terrain etc should be a lot more important. Anyone who wants to take on the High Dragon in DA:O has to come prepared. Fire-resist gear, buffs, a healer, a tank to distract/occupy the Dragon, frost-damage etc can make a potential very hard fight look easy - not because someone is skilled using mouse and keyboard or a controller, but because of simple planning.

Agreed. More RPG stuff would be great.

Why not use someone like Grunt to tank a YMIR - his durability should buy some time; hell, Stasis the damn Krogan using a (second) biotic squadmate, to make Grunt indestructible for Stasis' duration (but he won't be able to damage the mech either), i.e 'Friendly Fire' FTW While Vanguard Shep hits the (distracted) YMIR from behind (would be cool if enemies have areas which are more vulnerable than others) - just thinking aloud here.

Stuff like this would be very rewarding - at least for me - and it should be something that's only needed on the hardest difficulty (for those who like crazy stunts).

Why not, sounds good enough to me.

One of the few exceptions in ME2 is AI Hacking, clever use and targeting the 'right' enemy can make a huge difference. I got a couple responses to my AI Hacking Engineer vids by people accusing me to cheat, or not playing on Insanity - they didn't know what was happening (just like those ignorant European Knights). AI Hacking allowed the Engineer to move around at will and kill enemies like Vanguards and Assault Sentinels, but without their extra shields/armor > Tactics beat skill and strength! One of the most glorious moments for my Shep.

See, this is why I don't enjoy casters as much as combatants. I prefer using weapons to powers. But this is good, they should keep it in the game, but not for all classes.

I like to see more of these things in ME3. One of the reasons I like the Adept class best is because there's more to it than skill alone. Using the best possible weapons against specific enemies or defenses, specialized squadmates to assist where needed etc - makes all the difference in the world. The wrong weapons, strategy, squadmates, use of powers etc - have major impact on performance; with the wrong tools progress will be slow regardless how good your aim is, or how well you know the game.

I think you overrate what you need to do to succeed as an Adept. Today, there is so much DLC that playing Adept is far easier than it was a year ago. I've never had any problems with the Adept. I really like Adept and Engineer, but they are still my least favourite classes, since I prefer killing with weapons as much as possible.

Vanguard Shep and Professor Fortack:

Fortack: "You want to Charge a YMIR? On Insanity? - That's impossible, or do you have some kind of plan, a secret weapon maybe?"

Shep: "NO" > Fortack: "Good luck son." (calling the ME undertaker) :innocent:

Shep: "YES" > Fortack: "That might actually work son." (taking a good seat to watch the show)

Kudos for everyone who read the whole post

Yeah, this would be fine, but it can be achieved by means other than gimping/splitting Charge.

I generally like your ideas in that post, but most of them are a pipe-dream, I am afraid. The AI would have to be MUCH better to see even some of those ideas in the game.
By the way, the bit about Mongols is a great read. I am a history fan as well. Thanks for sharing.

Modifié par Kronner, 20 avril 2011 - 09:09 .

[The Spamming Troll]

kronner, you are a pimp.

[Aumata]

If bioware wanted to make ME1 tactical, they would have to make us customize squad armor. Make squad not have those damn long cool downs, dumb AI, and not all around gimp them in damage. Who thought it would be a good idea to gimp our allies anyway?

[PseudoEthnic]

Aynien wrote...

Since you are talking about guns, I was thinking, is there any chance of having acess to customize weapons inside a mission? Or we will have to wait for the whole thing get over, and go back to the Normandy to be able to change parts. I mean, having to go back to Normandy to change parts and then, go to a mission to see how the weapon is affected, kinda defeats the purpose of having a weapon customizable, right? Because, unless you are playing for like, the 3rd or 4th time, You won't have a clue to how that modification will behave against a certain type of foe, or so and on.

What you guys think about it?

I think that for the next game, they should expand the armory on the Normandy, and add a shooting gallery. That way, you can test out new mods and such on enemy holograms, and you don't have to worry about using bad mods on critical missions.

[Stardusk78]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Copied from my post in an Engineer thread because it's very much on topic here:

Add the ability to lay mines to allow for more options in defensive combat (which I suspect will feature much more strongly in ME3). Engineer should have more options in mines than other classes.

Drone should have more evolution/programming options instead of just Attack vs. Explosive, and they should be adjustable without spending eezo.

===============================================================================

Choose among Drone Mechanics:

(1) Attack: as in Attack Drone- good against enemies without much firepower;

(2) Defense: the Drone blocks the regular attacks (but not special abilities) of a single enemy- good against a single hard hitting enemy;

(3) Explosive: as in Explosive Drone- good against group of enemies with lots of fire power;

===============================================================================

Then choose among Drone Personalities:

(1) Aggressive: stay as close to the enemy as possible to constantly harass them;

(2) Evasive: spawn at the far side of the enemy, try to use hit and run tactics to lead them away from the Engineer;

(3) Provocative: spawn at the near side of the enemy, try to use hit and run tactics to lead them towards the Engineer.

===============================================================================

These, combined with traps/mines on choke points, will provide more spicy tactical opportunities for the Engineer.

We know that in ME3 Engineers can build turrets so...should be more tactical.

[VioletSparks]

I sort of wish we could pick and choose skills, for instance I'd choose:

1. Biotic Charge

2. Tactical Cloak

3.Singularity (but i think there should be a version where it sends a moving tornado type effect, like singulairity meets push - if it's as boring as in 1 & 2 I wouldn't pick it)

4. Pull

5. Barrier

6. Adrenaline Rush

7. Melee Specialisation (whatever they were talking about in Marca Player)

8. class Skill

This way you could be as powerful and diverse as you like, obviously your effectiveness would still scale with difficulty and level so you wouldn't be OVER-powered.. It would fit it makes sense that a warrior as prolific as shepard would have a wide range of skills.

2 other things:
Shields - Geth Shield Boost and Tech Armor looked quite cool, but Barrier looked half as good as it did in ME1 (i know this is superficial, but it's still about skills)... also, the ability to bring up shields (like shielded enemies have over their armor) as say a soldier would be nice addition (though I never really play as a soldier) - guess our shields are higher tech though because they aren't so visible.

Ammo Powers - Why Bioware did it I don't know, but ammo powers ruined the vanguard (who would have been the natural favourite if only for biotic charge), I always played as an adept because I hated the idea that two of my precious few skillslots were taken by ammo types (which were items in ME1!) and they have hinted at fixing this for ME3 but it's a shame the classes were a bit 'rigid' in ME2. Thankfully DA2 has shown how they are allowing more customisation of your skillset (each of my chars played very differently, even within the same class).

I like the idea of more melee skills, and am really hopeful for ME3's combat system

[termokanden]

VioletSparks wrote...

3.Singularity (but i think there should be a version where it sends a moving tornado type effect, like singulairity meets push - if it's as boring as in 1 & 2 I wouldn't pick it)

Singularity is boring?

[Waltzingbear]

termokanden wrote...

Singularity is boring?

Science is never boring